JUDGMENT

Bartly, J. - These three rules, in Revision Cases 1205 of 1937, 284 of 1938, and in Miscellaneous Case 6 of 1938, involve consideration of the same question of law. In Revision Case No. 1205, the petitioner was convicted of theft by a Union Bench, and an application to set aside the conviction, made u/s 71, Village Self-Government Act, was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In Revision Case No. 284, the petitioners were convicted u/s 504, I.P.C. On application made u/s 71, Village Self-Government Act, the sentence was reduced by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In Miscellaneous Case No.6 an application was made by the petitioners to the Sub-Divisional Officer to transfer a criminal case pending against them before a Union Bench. This application was refused after enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In all these instances, rules have been issued by this Court, and the point of law involved is whether the Court has jurisdiction to interfere.

2. It is material that the application to this Court was made in Case No.1205 u/s 439, Criminal P.C., in Case No.284 under Sections 435 and 439, Criminal P.C., and in Miscellaneous Case No.6 u/s 526, Criminal P.C., The statutory provisi